WebProNews

Tag: Antitrust

  • Google CEO Sundar Pichai Accused of Intentionally Deleting Communications

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai Accused of Intentionally Deleting Communications

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai is accused of intentionally deleting company communication in violation of US retention laws.

    Companies in the US are legally required to retain communications if they have reason to believe they may be involved in legal action. The Department of Justice has already accused Google of ‘systematically destroying’ communications related to its antitrust case. The DOJ maintains that Google intentionally had its various chat platforms set to auto-delete messages every 24 hours, despite telling US authorities that it had suspended such operation.

    The DOJ, as well as Epic Games and others, are now accusing Pichai of being involved in the deletion, effectively creating a top-down culture of hiding relevant information, according to FOSS Patents. In the latest claim, the plaintiffs make the following claim:

    “The newly produced Chats reveal a company-wide culture of concealment coming from the very top, including CEO Sundar Pichai, who is a custodian in this case. In one Chat, Mr. Pichai began discussing a substantive topic, and then immediately wrote: ‘[REDACTED]’ Then, nine seconds later, Mr. Pichai [REDACTED]. […] When asked under oath [REDACTED]’ (Id. Ex. 2, Pichai Dep. Tr. 195:7-12.)

    “Like Mr. Pichai, other key Google employees, including those in leadership roles, routinely opted to move from history-on rooms to history-off Chats to hold sensitive conversations, even though they knew they were subject to legal holds. Indeed, they did so even when discussing topics they knew were covered by the litigation holds in order to avoid leaving a record that could be produced in litigation.” (emphasis in original)

    The plaintiffs, including the Utah Attorney General, asked the court to issue an adverse ruling that Google was trying to hide something by deleting the messages. The court had previously indicated that it would not issue a ruling telling jurors they must conclude the deleted messages are indicative of Google intentionally hiding something, but the plaintiffs say this latest revelation provides enough evidence that that is exactly what Google and its executives were trying to do.

    In light of the recently produced documents, anything less than a clear adverse inference instruction — instructing the jury as to what Google did and what the jury should make of it — would reward Google for its years-long, calculated policy of systematically destroying evidence, and would encourage Google to maintain, rather than eradicate, the corporate culture of litigation misconduct it has nurtured for many years.

    If the plaintiffs are able to prevail upon the court and convince it to render such a judgment, it would be catastrophic for Google’s case.

    Eileen Scallen, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, previously told CNBC that an adverse jury instruction would be “very damning.”

    “The one person the jury respects in a courtroom is the trial judge,” Scallen said. “And if the trial judge is telling them you can presume that this was bad news for Google, they’re going to take that to heart.”

  • DOJ Says Google Misled It, “Systematically Destroyed” Messages

    DOJ Says Google Misled It, “Systematically Destroyed” Messages

    The Department of Justice says Google “systematically destroyed” messages and misled the agency about its actions.

    US companies are required by law to keep copies of internal communications if there is any reasonable anticipation of upcoming litigation. In Google’s case, the DOJ argues in its filing that the company should have anticipated the government’s legal action against it as early as mid-2019, according to CNBC.

    In spite of the DOJ’s belief that Google should have anticipated the current litigation, the company continued to delete its internal chats every 24 hours…right up to this month. Instead, the company left it up to individuals to decide whether they would keep or auto-delete their messages.

    “Few, if any,” did, says the DOJ.

    To make matters worse, the DOJ says the company repeatedly and “falsely” told the agency that it had ”‘put a legal hold in place’ that ‘suspends auto-deletion.’”

    See Also: States Sue Google for Antitrust

    As a result of the DOJ’s claims, Judge James Donato indicated at the end of January that he would consider an adverse jury instruction, although he would be open to allowing the jury to arrive at their own conclusions regarding the implications of Google’s actions.

    Eileen Scallen, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, told CNBC that an adverse jury instruction would be “very damning.”

    “The one person the jury respects in a courtroom is the trial judge,” Scallen said. “And if the trial judge is telling them you can presume that this was bad news for Google, they’re going to take that to heart.”

    In the meantime, Google is disputing the DOJ’s claims. A company spokesperson told CNBC that company officials “strongly refute the DOJ’s claims. Our teams have conscientiously worked for years to respond to inquiries and litigation. In fact, we have produced over 4 million documents in this case alone, and millions more to regulators around the world.”

    Given the various antitrust investigations that have been building against the company for years, it is hard to fathom any halfway intelligent individual not anticipating possible litigation against the company. Google may well have dug its own grave on this one.

  • FTC Commissioner Resigns, Pens Scathing Op-Ed About Lina Khan

    FTC Commissioner Resigns, Pens Scathing Op-Ed About Lina Khan

    FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson is resigning, penning a scathing op-ed in The Wall Street Journal condemning Chairwoman Lina Khan.

    Lina Khan was a controversial choice to lead the Federal Trade Commission, with some in the tech industry opposed to her appointment over her long-standing criticism of Big Tech. Since taking over the agency, Khan has increased regulatory scrutiny of tech companies.

    In her op-ed, Wilson argues the case that Khan has taken the FTC beyond the rule of law, and she can there no longer stand by and “enable her”:

    Much ink has been spilled about Lina Khan’s attempts to remake federal antitrust law as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. Less has been said about her disregard for the rule of law and due process and the way senior FTC officials enable her. I have failed repeatedly to persuade Ms. Khan and her enablers to do the right thing, and I refuse to give their endeavor any further hint of legitimacy by remaining. Accordingly, I will soon resign as an FTC commissioner.

    Wilson accuses Khan and her allies of breaking with established law and “decades of bipartisan precedent” in the pursuit of their agenda:

    Since Ms. Khan’s confirmation in 2021, my staff and I have spent countless hours seeking to uncover her abuses of government power. That task has become increasingly difficult as she has consolidated power within the Office of the Chairman, breaking decades of bipartisan precedent and undermining the commission structure that Congress wrote into law. I have sought to provide transparency and facilitate accountability through speeches and statements, but I face constraints on the information I can disclose—many legitimate, but some manufactured by Ms. Khan and the Democratic majority to avoid embarrassment.

    Wilson also takes aim at Khan’s past criticism of Big Tech and argues that it disqualifies Khan from serving as an impartial judge in cases involving the companies she has railed against in the past.

    Consider the FTC’s challenge to Meta’s acquisition of Within, a virtual-reality gaming company. Before joining the FTC, Ms. Khan argued that Meta should be blocked from making any future acquisitions and wrote a report on the same issues as a congressional staffer. She would now sit as a purportedly impartial judge and decide whether Meta can acquire Within. Spurning due-process considerations and federal ethics obligations, my Democratic colleagues on the commission affirmed Ms. Khan’s decision not to recuse herself.

    Commissioner Wilson’s op-ed is a lengthy read, one in which she continues to detail her allegations of abuses of power on Khan’s part.

    Most interestingly, Wilson’s position is an increasingly rare one in US politics. Wilson is currently the only Republican FTC Commissioner. As such, she repeatedly calls out her Democratic colleagues at a time when cracking down on antitrust abuses is one of the few things that lawmakers and regultors on both sides of the aisle can agree on.

  • DOJ Is Ramping Up Antitrust Investigation of Apple

    DOJ Is Ramping Up Antitrust Investigation of Apple

    Apple may be in for trouble ahead, with the Department of Justice ramping up its antitrust investigation into the iPhone maker.

    Rumors began circulating in mid-2022 that the DOJ was looking at a possible antitrust suit against Apple. The company has come under increased scrutiny for how it runs the App Store, although the DOJ’s focus expanded to include how Apple interacts with hardware developers.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, the DOJ is now escalating its investigation, which covers Apple’s policies regarding third-party apps in iOS, as well as whether the company abuses its position to favor its own apps and services.

    The Journal’s sources say the DOJ’s escalation includes “more litigators now assigned to the case and new requests for documents and consultations with companies involved.”

    The DOJ is also looking at Jonathan Kanter’s possible role. Until now, Kanter, one of the agency’s top antitrust officials, has been sidelined over a potential conflict of interest since Kanter has been a long-time antitrust attorney and critic who has represented companies in cases against Apple. The DOJ is eager to have him involved in the case, however, and has been investigating whether it is possible to do so.

    The Journal’s sources could not confirm the final decision regarding Kanter but said he would likely be involved in any case against Apple.

    If the DOJ’s probe moves forward, it could spell significant trouble for Apple in the US and bring the company under similar regulatory restrictions as those being imposed by the EU.

  • FTC May Launch Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon

    FTC May Launch Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon

    The Federal Trade Commission is reportedly preparing an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, the latest in regulators’ efforts to reign in Big Tech.

    Big Tech has been coming under increased scrutiny in recent years, with critics accusing companies of dominating their respective markets and unfairly using their size and influence to do so. FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan has been a vocal critic of Big Tech, and Amazon in particular, making a possible lawsuit against the company unsurprising.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, the FTC is looking at whether Amazon unfairly favors its own products and services, and whether it deals unfairly with third-party sellers. Regulators are also scrutinizing whether Amazon Prime unfairly bundles services to Amazon’s benefit.

    The Journal’s sources say it’s unclear whether the FTC will file a suit, and Amazon’s executives have not yet met with individual FTC commissioners to make their case. At this point, the FTC could decide either way on whether to pursue action.

  • Germany Investigating PayPal’s Market Dominance

    Germany Investigating PayPal’s Market Dominance

    PayPal is in the crosshairs of German regulators over concerns that it used its market dominance to stifle competition.

    PayPal is a popular online payment processor and money transfer platform. In many countries, it’s the de facto standard payment method for buying and purchasing online.

    According to Reuters, however, German regulators are concerned the company may have abused that dominance in an effort to ward off competition. In particular, the antitrust regulator raised concerns over clauses in PayPal’s agreement that say sellers cannot show a preference for other payment methods, or make it easier for customers to use them.

    “These clauses could restrict competition and constitute a violation of the prohibition of abuse,” said chief Andreas Mundt.

    “We will now examine what market power PayPal has and to what extent online merchants are dependent on offering PayPal as a payment method.”

  • Senator Mark Warner Wants to ‘Restart Antitrust’ Legislation

    Senator Mark Warner Wants to ‘Restart Antitrust’ Legislation

    After a contentious start for the new Congress, Senator Mark Warner is ready to “restart antitrust” legislation.

    The US has been increasingly trying to reign in Big Tech’s influence and power, but efforts have largely stalled. Senator Warner is determined to get the process going again.

    “Let’s restart antitrust,” Warner (D., Va.) told MarketWatch on Monday. “Lessons were learned [in 2022] and we can break through with kids legislation. Can’t we at least agree on kids safety?”

    In particular, Senator Warner wants to take aim at Section 230, the legislation that protects online platforms from legal liability resulting from the speech or actions of their users.

    “Section 230 has been this vast, get-out-of-jail free card,” Warner said,

    Warner also indicated improved interoperability between online platforms could be a main goal, as well preventing Big Tech companies from preferring their own products and services over those of competitors.

    The EU has already unveiled its Digital Markets Act (DMA) that achieves much of what Warner hopes to. Only time will tell if the US can pass similar legislation.

  • Big Tech’s $95 Million Lobbying May Be Close to Scuttling Antitrust Bill

    Big Tech’s $95 Million Lobbying May Be Close to Scuttling Antitrust Bill

    Congress is trying to pass an antitrust bill that would significantly alter the tech landscape, but Big Tech has spent $95 million to scuttle it.

    The American Innovation and Choice Online Act takes aim at Big Tech companies in an effort to reign in their influence and create a more competitive environment. One of the key provisions of the bill would prevent companies from favoring their own products and services.

    Despite bipartisan support for the bill among lawmakers, Bloomberg is reporting that Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta have spent nearly $95 million lobbying against the legislation in a move that may be paying off. Bloomberg’s sources said the bill appeared to be losing momentum and was facing a do-or-die moment.

    “If supporters of this bill had enough votes, it wouldn’t be a bill, it would be a law,” Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, told the outlet.

    The bill has already faced stiff opposition, not only from Big Tech but also from unexpected sources. The Independent Women’s Voice came out as an early critic of the legislation.

    Read more: Amazon Cries Fouls Over US Antitrust Bill

    “The days of innovative services making it easier to live, work, and do business, especially during a pandemic, could be numbered if the American Innovation and Choice Online Act passes the full Senate,” said Patrice Onwuka, a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice, in a statement to WPN in January 2022. “Today’s affirmative committee vote is very troubling because this bill is not about protecting competition in America, but expanding regulatory control over a handful of large tech corporations, even if to the detriment of consumers.”

    Onwuka went on to describe the bill as “ill-conceived” and one that would hurt women-owned businesses.

    “Senators Klobuchar and Grassley acknowledged the issues with their ill-conceived legislation by introducing a manager’s amendment that does nothing to address substantive concerns from across the political spectrum,” Onwuka continued. “As written, convenient, cost-saving, and secure services from Google Maps in search results to Amazon Prime would effectively be banned. The impacts for women are easy to imagine. Women business owners who depend on a variety of services to find customers, target their goods and services to the right audience, and carry out their business functions would be left in the cold.”

    With limited time before the November midterm elections, some worry there are other, more pressing matters for the Senate to consider. It remains to be seen if the antitrust bill will squeeze through, but there are at least 95 million reasons why it may not.

  • DOJ May Launch Antitrust Suit Against Apple

    DOJ May Launch Antitrust Suit Against Apple

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) may be close to launching an antitrust lawsuit against Apple after a years-long investigation.

    The DOJ began investigating Apple’s App Store practices in 2019, but the investigation eventually widened to include the company’s interaction with other hardware developers. According to Politico, the agency is close to a decision and could proceed with a lawsuit in the near future.

    Apple’s App Store serves as the only way to install applications on the company’s iPhones and iPads. Initially lauded as a breakthrough for small developers, sentiment has soured in recent years, with many developers wanting to avoid Apple’s fees or avoid the App Store altogether.

    The company has also faced increasing criticism from other hardware makers, such as smart-tracking device maker Tile, who claims the company makes it difficult for them to integrate their products with iOS.

    According to Politico, no decision has been reached, but officials are looking at the App Store, as well as Apple’s mobile operating systems in general.

    Making a case against Apple will not be an easy matter. Epic Games sued Apple in an effort to circumvent the App Store and the mandatory use of Apple’s payment processing system. Epic largely failed in making its case, with the judge ruling that Apple was not a monopoly. The only victory Epic scored was the judge ruling that Apple cannot prevent developers from using third-party payment systems. Both companies have appealed the ruling.

    Politico believes the DOJ will wait to see how the appeals court rules in the Epic case before making a final decision on whether to proceed with an antitrust suit.

  • Microsoft Hit With EU Antitrust Complaint Over Its Cloud Business

    Microsoft Hit With EU Antitrust Complaint Over Its Cloud Business

    Microsoft has been hit with an antitrust complaint regarding its cloud business in the EU, as rivals try to compete against the second-largest cloud provider.

    Microsoft Azure is second only to Amazon’s AWS in the cloud market. One significant advantage Microsoft has over all of its rivals, both large and small, is the ecosystem the company has built up for decades. The business world runs on Microsoft software, including Windows and Office, and that familiarity with the ecosystem gives the company a significant competitive advantage.

    According to Reuters, three of Microsoft’s EU competitors, including OVHcloud, have filed an antitrust complaint.

    “Through abusing its dominant position, Microsoft undermines fair competition and limits consumer choice in the cloud computing services market,” OVHcloud said.

    “We’re continuously evaluating how we can best support partners and make Microsoft software available to customers across all environments, including those of other cloud providers,” a spokesperson for Microsoft told Reuters in response.

    It’s always unusual when it’s the runner-up, and not the market leader, accused of antitrust violations. According to The Wall Street Journal, however, it does appear it’s Microsoft’s bundling of its productivity software that is at the heart of the issue. OVHcloud and its co-complainants allege that it costs Microsoft Office customers more if they choose to use a third-party cloud provider, rather than Microsoft’s offerings.

    The EU is generally tougher on companies than the US, more aggressively protecting consumer rights. If there is merit to the complaint, Microsoft could have a major issue on its hands.

  • Lawmakers Introduce Bills to Ban Mergers Over $5 Billion

    Lawmakers Introduce Bills to Ban Mergers Over $5 Billion

    US Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Mondaire Jones have introduced bills to ban corporate mergers over $5 billion.

    Mergers have become an increasingly major concern for lawmakers, in both the US and the EU. Big Tech, in particular, has come under scrutiny, with many mergers being viewed as anticompetitive. Various measures have been proposed, but new bills — Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act — by Warren and Jones may be the most aggressive yet, proposing a total ban on mergers over $5 billion.

    The bills would give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to block mergers without needing a court order. The two agencies would also be given the power to undo mergers they deem harmful.

    “For the last five decades, big companies have had almost free reign over our economy, squashing competitors, growing bigger and bigger, and abusing their market power to price gouge consumers and crush workers and small businesses. This unconstitutional behavior has to stop. My new bill with Rep. Jones would restore our country’s anti-monopoly tradition by banning the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers and giving the DOJ and the FTC stronger tools to enforce our antitrust laws and restore real competition in our markets. Congress needs to take bold action to bring down prices for families and promote a fairer economy for all Americans, and our bill would do just that,” said Senator Warren.

    “In 2021, our antitrust agencies received more merger filings than in any other year during the last decade,” said Congressman Mondaire Jones. “From major tech mergers between companies like Facebook and Instagram to agriculture mergers between companies like Wayne and Sanderson Farms, the recent rise in corporate consolidation has increased unemployment, suppressed wages, and allowed companies to hike up prices even further during this period of inflation. It’s why we need the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act, which I’m proud to introduce with Senator Elizabeth Warren. Our bill would empower workers, raise wages, reduce prices, combat inequality, and enable small businesses to thrive. By banning the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers, overhauling the merger-review process to include consideration of labor-market consequences, and strengthening agencies’ tools to break up harmful mergers, our bill will tackle corporate consolidation head on and help build a fairer, more vibrant economy that works for everyone.”

    In just the last few weeks, Microsoft announced plans to acquire Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, and Google is purchasing Mandiant for $5.4 billion. Similarly, Amazon is purchasing MGM for $8.45 billion. If the bills should pass, these deals could be on the chopping block, or undone after the fact.

  • Google Under Closer Scrutiny From German Antitrust Watchdog

    Google Under Closer Scrutiny From German Antitrust Watchdog

    Google has been labeled a company of “paramount significance” by the German antitrust watchdog, opening the door for more scrutiny.

    Google is facing scrutiny and legal challenges worldwide over antitrust concerns related to its search dominance, advertising business, and its Android operating system.

    According to SFGATE, Google’s designation was changed by the Bundeskartellamt, the German antitrust group, allowing it “to intervene earlier and more effectively” to block anti-competitive behavior. The classification lasts for five years.

    “This is a very important step, since based on this decision, the Bundeskartellamt can now take action against specific anti-competitive practices by Google,” said the watchdog’s president, Andreas Mundt.

    Google has already said it will not appeal the decision.

    “We are confident that we comply with the rules and, to the extent that changes are necessary, we will continue to work constructively with the (Federal Cartel Office) to find solutions that enable people and businesses in Germany to continue to use our products,” Google said in a statement.

  • Italy Fines Amazon $1.3 Billion For Antitrust Violations

    Italy Fines Amazon $1.3 Billion For Antitrust Violations

    Italian regulators have fined Amazon $1.3 billion for promoting third-party sellers that buy its extra services over other sellers.

    Amazon is the biggest e-commerce platform on the planet and, as such, serves as a gateway for countless other companies looking to sell online. Unfortunately, Amazon’s position as the market leader also makes it the gatekeeper for those third-party companies. The decisions it makes about which companies to promote can mean the life or death of a smaller company’s business.

    According to Italian regulators, Amazon has been abusing that position, favoring sellers that buy into its extra services over sellers that don’t. As a result, Italian antitrust regulators have fined the company $1.3 billion

    Amazon provided a statement to GeekWire disagreeing with the ruling.

    “We strongly disagree with the decision of the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) and we will appeal. The proposed fine and remedies are unjustified and disproportionate,” Amazon’s spokesperson said.

    “More than half of all annual sales on Amazon in Italy come from small and medium sized businesses and their success is at the heart of our business model,” the spokesperson added. “Small and medium-sized businesses have multiple channels to sell their products both online and offline: Amazon is just one of those options.”

  • Lawsuit Sheds a Light on Google Play Store Revenue

    Lawsuit Sheds a Light on Google Play Store Revenue

    A lawsuit accusing Google of antitrust behavior in respect to its Play Store is shedding light on how much revenue it brings in, to the tune of $11.2 billion.

    In July, the District of Columbia and 36 states sued Google alleging anticompetitive behavior in how the company runs its Android Play Store. Documents unsealed Saturday give the first real insight into just how profitable the Play Store is.

    Google has never revealed its Play Store financial performance before, instead including its results with other services. This makes it nearly impossible to discern how successful the platform is.

    According to Reuters, via Digital Trends, Google’s Play Store brought in $11.2 billion in revenue in 2019, including $8.5 billion in gross profit.

  • Facebook and Giphy Used Legal Loophole to Close Deal

    Facebook and Giphy Used Legal Loophole to Close Deal

    Giphy used a legal loophole to help Facebook purchase it without drawing regulatory scrutiny.

    Facebook has been under increased antitrust scrutiny, with the tech giant being accused of buying up smaller rivals to prevent them from becoming major threats. The company announced it was purchasing Giphy in May 2020, and the deal closed largely without issues, although the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recentlysaid it may force Facebook to sell Giphy.

    Despite that recent threat, it’s still somewhat surprising the company was able to purchase Giphy at all, given the level of scrutiny it was already under. According to Bloomberg, that was no accident. In fact, the two companies used a legal loophole specifically to avoid scrutiny.

    According to Bloomberg’s sources, Giphy paid its investors a dividend prior to the merger. This lowered the company’s assets, at least on paper, enough to fall below the threshold where the merger would have to be reported to antitrust officials. This allowed the deal to fly under the radar and be closed before anyone was the wiser.

    Given the current anti-Big Tech sentiment on the rise, it’s a fair bet the law allowing these stealth mergers to take place will likely come under scrutiny of its own.

  • Amazon Warning Sellers About Congress’ Antitrust Efforts

    Amazon Warning Sellers About Congress’ Antitrust Efforts

    Amazon is contacting third-party sellers to warn them of how impending action by Congress could impact them.

    Congress seems determined to tackle issues with Big Tech, including what it perceives as antitrust violations and monopolistic behavior. Amazon is one of the companies Congress has its sights set on, and this is already a concern for the e-commerce giant.

    According to CNBC, the company has begun contacting some of its third-party sellers, one of its biggest growth markets, to inform them of how they may be impacted.

    “We’re reaching out to a small group of our sellers to make them aware of a package of legislative proposals, currently in Congress, that is aimed at regulating Amazon and other large technology companies,” states the email, send by CNBC. “It is early in the process and the bills are subject to change, but we are concerned that they could potentially have significant negative effects on small and medium-sized businesses like yours that sell in our store.”

    As Amazon points out, there is much that could change before the antitrust bills make it into law. Nonetheless, the threat of the bills is already causing major concern.

  • Biden Will Nominate Long-Time Google Foe to Lead DOJ Antitrust Efforts

    Biden Will Nominate Long-Time Google Foe to Lead DOJ Antitrust Efforts

    In a worrisome sign for Big Tech, President Joe Biden plans to nominate Jonathan Kanter, a long-time Google foe, to head the DOJ antitrust division.

    A showdown between the US government and Big Tech has been years in the making, and all indications are the government is preparing to make sweeping changes to how tech companies operate. The latest, according to Bloomberg, is the upcoming nomination of Jonathan Kanter to lead the DOJ’s antitrust efforts.

    Kanter has widespread support among progressives and other lawmakers who say the US economy is being held back by monopolies wielding too much power. In his role, Kanter would have tremendous authority to investigate antitrust concerns, and help shape the government’s response.

    Kanter’s appointment still needs to pass the Senate, but concerns over Big Tech are one of the few things both parties seem to agree on.

  • 37 States and D.C. Sue Google for Alleged Play Store Antitrust Issues

    37 States and D.C. Sue Google for Alleged Play Store Antitrust Issues

    A coalition of 37 states, plus the District of Columbia, have sued Google over alleged antitrust violations with its Play Store.

    Google is facing numerous lawsuits and investigations, being accused of abusing its dominant search and advertising position. The company is also being sued by Epic, the creator of Fortnite, over alleged antitrust violations.

    Google’s problems appear to be going from bad to worse, with 36 states and D.C. launching an antitrust lawsuit against the company. Colorado later joined the coalition, bringing the number of states to 37, according to Engadget. The case revolves around Google’s plans charge a 30% commission to all developers that use the Play Store, according to Politico.

    The bipartisan group of attorneys general represent:

    South Dakota, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Indiana, Utah, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Idaho, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Montana, Arkansas, Oregon, Vermont, California, Mississippi, Delaware, Missouri, North Dakota, Colorado, Washington, North Carolina, Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Arizona.

    Google has responded to the lawsuit, accusing the states of ignoring the choice Android users have to use the Play Store, or download from a rival store.

    We built Android to create more choices in mobile technology. Today, anyone, including our competitors, can customize and build devices with the Android operating system — for free. 

    We also built an app store, Google Play, that helps people download apps on their devices. If you don’t find the app you’re looking for in Google Play, you can choose to download the app from a rival app store or directly from a developer’s website. We don’t impose the same restrictions as other mobile operating systems do.

    So it’s strange that a group of state attorneys general chose to file a lawsuit attacking a system that provides more openness and choice than others. This complaint mimics a similarly meritless lawsuit filed by the large app developer Epic Games, which has benefitted from Android’s openness by distributing its Fortnite app outside of Google Play.

    It does seem strange the states are choosing to sue Google for charging developers for the use of its Play Store when such usage is entirely optional.

  • FTC Scrutinizing Amazon’s MGM Acquisition

    FTC Scrutinizing Amazon’s MGM Acquisition

    The Federal Trade Commission is planning to review Amazon’s acquisition of MGM at a time when Big Tech is facing increased scrutiny.

    Amazon announced in May it was purchasing MGM for $8.45 billion. MGM had reportedly been looking for a buyer for some time, and Amazon was a natural fit as it looks to expand its Prime Video content catalog.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, the FTC is planning on reviewing the decision, amid antitrust concerns and a wider scrutiny of the increasing power and influence the tech industry wields. The decision also comes immediately after the appointment of Lina Khan as FTC Chairwoman. Khan made a name as an antitrust critic, in large part for her criticism of Amazon.

    MGM is no longer one of the larger Hollywood studios, so that is certainly in the Amazon’s favor. Nonetheless, given the power Amazon already wields — not to mention the success of its Prime Video platform — buying MGM may be a bridge too far for regulators.

  • EU Investigating Google’s Ad Business

    EU Investigating Google’s Ad Business

    On the heels of reports the EU was preparing to investigate Google’s ad business, the EU Commission has opened a formal investigation.

    Google has been facing investigations, antitrust inquiries and lawsuits with increasing frequency. The company recently settled with the French Competition Authority over how it operates its ad platform, and committed to making significant changes.

    The EU is now opening an even broader investigation, aimed at determining whether Google has used its position to favor its own ad tech services over competitors.

    “Online advertising services are at the heart of how Google and publishers monetise their online services,” Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said. “Google collects data to be used for targeted advertising purposes, it sells advertising space and also acts as an online advertising intermediary. So Google is present at almost all levels of the supply chain for online display advertising. We are concerned that Google has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack. A level playing field is of the essence for everyone in the supply chain. Fair competition is important – both for advertisers to reach consumers on publishers’ sites and for publishers to sell their space to advertisers, to generate revenues and funding for content. We will also be looking at Google’s policies on user tracking to make sure they are in line with fair competition.“

    The EU’s investigation could be one of the biggest challenges the company faces, and could have profound repercussions for how it conducts its ad business. The fact that Google recently settled the French investigation, and did not dispute the facts of the case, may make it harder for the company to get ahead of the EU’s investigation.

  • EU Poised to Investigate Google’s Adtech Business

    EU Poised to Investigate Google’s Adtech Business

    Fresh on the heels of a French investigation into Google’s advertising business, the company may be facing an even bigger threat in the form of an EU investigation.

    According to Reuters Google could be about to face its biggest regulatory challenge yet, as the EU is reportedly preparing to investigate the company’s adtech business. The company recently settled with the French Competition Authority, to the tune of $267 million, and vowed to make changes.

    It appears EU antitrust regulators may be looking to go further, however, and scrutinize the company’s business far more than the French regulators did, according to Reuters’ sources. The investigation will reportedly begin before the end of the year.

    The rumors are especially bad news for Google, as advertising is the bread-and-butter of the company’s revenue, far exceeding any other business division.